April 10, 2026
Judges Appear Open to Letting Diddy Out of Prison
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed A three judge panel is weighing whether to acquit Sean “Diddy” Combs or reduce the 50 month sentence he received at trial. Comb’s attorneys argued their client received the highest sentence ever imposed for the prostitution crimes he was convicted of last summer. The prosecution insisted that Comb’s sentencing was appropriate and below federal guidelines. After the two hour hearing, a ruling could now come at any time.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. Did is Friday, April tenth.
00:00:05
Speaker 2: And we apparently are on standby for Sean Diddy Combs to walk out of prison? And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
00:00:16
Speaker 1: Robes. I have that right. He had an appeal hearing yesterday.
00:00:20
Speaker 2: They didn't give an immediate decision, but it could come in any moment.
00:00:25
Speaker 1: Robes, Is this what is at stake?
00:00:27
Speaker 2: And did I overstate we're standing by to see if this man walks out of jail.
00:00:31
Speaker 3: Yes, because Diddy's attorneys asked for that very thing. They asked for his immediate release. They asked for his convictions to be overturned, and if the three judge panel didn't want to go so far as to do that, they've at least asked for them to rule that his sentencing should be revisited because it was the harshest sentencing ever given to a I guess a client or a person face similar charges with a similar criminal history.
00:01:02
Speaker 2: It's interesting you said client because we're talking about prostitution.
00:01:06
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're looking for the word.
00:01:08
Speaker 3: I was looking for the right word. It didn't come to me, but maybe it was very appropriate.
00:01:12
Speaker 2: But the reason this has risen to the level robes. We're not just oh, here's another appeal and some papers have been filed.
00:01:19
Speaker 1: It was an appeal.
00:01:20
Speaker 2: This was the official hearing, the big day he's been waiting on, and the arguments happened in court. Yes, that raises it to a level, but robes and raises to another level because the reporting from the folks in the room were that these judgees seem to really be listening to Diddy's argument.
00:01:38
Speaker 4: Yes, so it's interesting.
00:01:39
Speaker 3: We're trying to read the tea leaves because obviously we don't have a ruling or a judgment yet from the judges.
00:01:46
Speaker 4: But we did get some of the questions they.
00:01:48
Speaker 3: Were asking and some of the responses they were looking for, and in some moments it did feel.
00:01:55
Speaker 4: Or appear as though they were.
00:01:57
Speaker 3: Definitely considering significantly what Diddy's attorneys were arguing, and they at one point one of the judges actually asked the prosecution was questioning the prosecution and said the Man Act was just a side show. Now you want us to rely on all this acquitted conduct.
00:02:16
Speaker 4: That was very compelling.
00:02:18
Speaker 2: So the center of what we're talking about here, folks, he remember the trial with last July went eight weeks explosive, very explosive and pretty graphic testimony throughout. He ultimately gets convicted of two of the five charges against him. He was acquitted of three charges that were most serious that could have resulted in him spending life in prison. He was convicted on two charges having to do with prostitution. Now those two ends up with this right, Robes, he gets four years in prison. So this is where we are. The argument now that catches us up. But they are saying, Robes his attorneys is that the two things he was convicted of, the judge is actually considering conduct in the thing the jury said he didn't do. This now is the center of the argument. And quite frankly, well it sounds like both sides have an argument. And I'm not sure if it's clear if judges are legally allowed to do this or not.
00:03:13
Speaker 3: I believe that that was the argument the prosecution was making. They were saying, yes, you can consider that that that is something that judges are allowed to do, and so.
00:03:24
Speaker 4: That is what they have argued.
00:03:26
Speaker 3: In fact, they said, even if judge a Supermanian made an error in his application and interpretation of the acquitted conduct guideline, which we don't think he did. But even if he did, they argued that that error would be harmless. So you know, they said that, and this is what their other argument, according to Combs and his attorneys. Basically, they were calling, this is bs that the district court should have closed its eyes on how he carried out his man act defenses and abused his victims. And they said, he violently beat them, he threatened them, he lied to them, he plied them with drugs. And they argued to this panel, to this appellate court, to do otherwise would have been unfair and unjust, and that Combs is wrong in his argument that those past acts shouldn't have been considered.
00:04:16
Speaker 4: They are saying the.
00:04:17
Speaker 3: Judge absolutely did and should have considered all of those other acts when putting his sentencing together.
00:04:24
Speaker 2: So bottom lining it is that, yes, he committed this offense. His side is saying, just take it on the merits of the offense. The other side is saying, you have to consider how he committed the offense. Yes correct, it's prostitution, yes fine, But how did he commit the offense of prostitution by beating people, by coercing people, by being violent to folks?
00:04:53
Speaker 1: That is the argument that is a fascinating legal argument.
00:04:55
Speaker 2: And it seems like they are both sides have some legal history and precedent on their sign and are making that argument.
00:05:02
Speaker 1: This is fascinating to me.
00:05:03
Speaker 3: And it's interesting you say that because one of the judges basically said exactly that he said.
00:05:08
Speaker 4: He said he called this an exceptionally.
00:05:11
Speaker 3: Difficult case that raises questions a first impression not only for this court but for any federal court in the country. So what happens or what this appellate panel decides, they know is going to have far reaching and long lasting effects on cases that may come after this one.
00:05:31
Speaker 1: And did I see this is a court.
00:05:33
Speaker 2: I think a lot of people were waiting and expecting them to rule yesterday and that sometimes that's a standard fare for them.
00:05:40
Speaker 4: Yes, they said that there is no.
00:05:43
Speaker 3: There's no expected necessary decision that day, but it could have happened, so yes, they folks who went to the court said that this was very much like the trial itself in terms of who was there. People were all outside the court. They were waiting to see who would come and go. They were waiting to see if they can get in. It was a bit of a media circus once again down there at the Federal Court.
00:06:04
Speaker 2: And we should note he was not there. Sean Ditty Combs did not attend. I believe one family member of his did attend this. And the way it was set up, Robes, it very much sounded like, I mean what I'm used to Supreme Court arguments. East side got ten minutes to make a presentation, but the thing ends up going two hours. They were peppering these lawyers with all these questions. But Roopes, I didn't you put it in such a way that this case now is not just about Sean Ditty COLEMs. It seems like the judges are taking this they know all eyes are on them because of who he is, but also because of the precedent that might be set moving forward for cases.
00:06:41
Speaker 4: Oh this is huge.
00:06:42
Speaker 3: Imagine if if they decided if they sided with Diddy's lawyers on this, what this would do to judges when they sentence a defendant. And defendant is what I was looking for instead of client, that was the word I was looking for. But yes, this would impact every case that followed in terms of where a judge felt like his leeway was in making his determination on sentencing, what he could consider what or she could or could not consider. This is going to have a lasting impact on the way judges do their thing going forward, for sure.
00:07:19
Speaker 2: But it was interesting to Hearbze, and I didn't think I heard the prosecutors really pushed back on the point his Diddy's lawyers were making. No one who has ever been convicted of this has ever gotten a sentence like this he has is the harshest sentence in the history of the Man Act?
00:07:42
Speaker 1: Is this correct? Ye?
00:07:43
Speaker 3: So I actually have the exact quotes from Alexander Alexandra Shapiro. Earl Alexander, It's Alexandra Shapiro. They said this sentence was the highest sentence ever imposed for a Man Act defendant sentenced under the same base, offense level and criminal history category. The jury only authorized punishment for prostitution. It never authorized a sentence four times the typical sentence for that crime.
00:08:13
Speaker 4: That's a powerful argument.
00:08:16
Speaker 2: This is the harshest sentence in the history of the Man Act by far.
00:08:22
Speaker 4: There are times more so.
00:08:24
Speaker 2: But Robes, I don't know this argument. Are you allowed to consider how somebody committed the Man Act defense? Now, something we heard about a lot going in to this hearing ends up being something we didn't really hear about at all during the hearing. We'll explain it sa here we continue here on this Friday, Amy and TJ.
00:08:56
Speaker 1: Rope.
00:08:57
Speaker 2: It's wild to think that we are waiting on decision that could have Sean Diddy Coombs out of prison the moment the decision comes.
00:09:05
Speaker 3: You know, I'm not really anticipating that, but as soon as you said it, I thought, Wow, it is possible.
00:09:10
Speaker 4: It could happen. Right now.
00:09:12
Speaker 3: He is in the middle of serving a fifty month sentence for his crimes. He's scheduled to be released exactly two years from now, April twenty twenty six. So look, his lawyers are trying to get him out now, or at least get a reduced sentence out of this appeals court hearing.
00:09:31
Speaker 2: And we have to remember, too, Ropes, he was in prison that whole time, from his arrest through his trial. If he gets a reduced sentence, there's a lot of time served in that sentence right now.
00:09:43
Speaker 3: True, he's been behind bar since September of twenty twenty four, I believe, so that is quite some time.
00:09:48
Speaker 1: The man has already served an hour a.
00:09:50
Speaker 4: Year and a half in prison, an hour yes, it's early.
00:09:54
Speaker 1: Yes, this client spent an hour and a half in jail. Yeah, this is how it's been a long week.
00:09:58
Speaker 2: Folks stay with us so much of what And I was waiting to hear the argument, but they were talking about he has a First Amendment right to shoot, produce, and watch porn. That was part of the argument at least in their briefing. This did not did you see anywhere that this came up.
00:10:16
Speaker 3: In fact, I saw many folks point out that that really wasn't discussed. Look, if you think about it, I was surprised to hear that both sides only got ten minutes to present their arguments. Now, before this actual hearing took place, the defense submitted an eighty four page briefing of filing making their arguments, and I believe the prosecution submitted an eighty three page argument about why what the judge decided should hold. So they obviously were able to make their points very specifically and very detailed in these filings. But when it came to the oral arguments, yeah, they only got ten minutes. So maybe they just had to focus on what they thought their best chance was. And the First Amendment argument was the argument that his attorneys are making to have it all thrown out, to have him completely acquitted, to have him walk out of prison today.
00:11:07
Speaker 2: Yes, because he wasn't a client, because he wasn't someone benefiting from the prostitution. He wasn't hiring somebody to have sex with. He bought some plane tickets for people to come for a porn shoot. That is the argument, and the argument on the other side, I kind of remember it rose the argument that this gets everybody out of like moving forward, so everybody can just say when I, yes, I hired a prostitute in that state, broad her to this state, but that's not illegal because I filmed it.
00:11:36
Speaker 3: Right. That's tough, but we all and we talked about this during the trial. The use or the application of the Man Act just in general was shaky grounds, so to speak. And that is what I thought was interesting that one of the judges even acknowledged and pointed out when questioning the prosecution, referring to the Man Act as it was used in Diddy's.
00:11:58
Speaker 4: Trial as a side show.
00:11:59
Speaker 3: So I think everyone gets that that was a very loose interpretation of the Man Act and certainly not what it was intended to be used for.
00:12:09
Speaker 2: I'm trying to I can't remember the name, the nickname it had, just its racist origins, but I can't remember what they used to call it. So the Man Act has been debated a plenty. Now the debate is was it applied correctly in how Sean diddy Combe was punished for two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, And that has to do with the Man.
00:12:33
Speaker 4: Act, which was called the White slavery Law.
00:12:36
Speaker 1: There it is, that is what it was called.
00:12:38
Speaker 3: So yes, this was used, and it's never been used like this before, but it worked, at least in this particular case to convict Sean Diddy Combs because he was acquitted of the more serious charges of racketeering conspiracy and certainly that would have landed him in jail potentially for the rest of his life. So just the mere fact that he was only sentenced to fifty months was a win for the defense. But now, look, they could bring home another massive victory if they get any of that sentence reduced further.
00:13:10
Speaker 1: This would be bananas.
00:13:13
Speaker 2: But we stand by Rhodes and we've went through and we're covering on some just making sure you didn't see something. And I didn't see a good indication of when a decision might come.
00:13:21
Speaker 3: No, and I think that's just completely up in the air. We have no idea when. But look, it wouldn't it wouldn't be out of the question to get a ruling today, So we will obviously be Yeah, we will keep our eye on this. Everyone is waiting for word on this. This is a big deal again for Sean Didty Combs, but also for our legal system period.
00:13:43
Speaker 2: A lot of folks said this case should not have been brought in the first place, and then after it was brought they shouldn't have shot for the moon with some of these charges. We shall see, but the Sean Diddy Coombe saga is not over.
00:13:56
Speaker 1: We will keep an eye on it.
00:13:57
Speaker 2: As always, top right corner of your Apple podcast app where you see our show page a little button that says follow click that you can subscribe and make sure you always get our updates. And as we say, there's always a plenty these days. And with that, we always appreciate your spending time with us. I am TJ. Holmes on behalf of my dear Amy Robach. We'll talk to you
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. Did is Friday, April tenth.
00:00:05
Speaker 2: And we apparently are on standby for Sean Diddy Combs to walk out of prison? And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
00:00:16
Speaker 1: Robes. I have that right. He had an appeal hearing yesterday.
00:00:20
Speaker 2: They didn't give an immediate decision, but it could come in any moment.
00:00:25
Speaker 1: Robes, Is this what is at stake?
00:00:27
Speaker 2: And did I overstate we're standing by to see if this man walks out of jail.
00:00:31
Speaker 3: Yes, because Diddy's attorneys asked for that very thing. They asked for his immediate release. They asked for his convictions to be overturned, and if the three judge panel didn't want to go so far as to do that, they've at least asked for them to rule that his sentencing should be revisited because it was the harshest sentencing ever given to a I guess a client or a person face similar charges with a similar criminal history.
00:01:02
Speaker 2: It's interesting you said client because we're talking about prostitution.
00:01:06
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're looking for the word.
00:01:08
Speaker 3: I was looking for the right word. It didn't come to me, but maybe it was very appropriate.
00:01:12
Speaker 2: But the reason this has risen to the level robes. We're not just oh, here's another appeal and some papers have been filed.
00:01:19
Speaker 1: It was an appeal.
00:01:20
Speaker 2: This was the official hearing, the big day he's been waiting on, and the arguments happened in court. Yes, that raises it to a level, but robes and raises to another level because the reporting from the folks in the room were that these judgees seem to really be listening to Diddy's argument.
00:01:38
Speaker 4: Yes, so it's interesting.
00:01:39
Speaker 3: We're trying to read the tea leaves because obviously we don't have a ruling or a judgment yet from the judges.
00:01:46
Speaker 4: But we did get some of the questions they.
00:01:48
Speaker 3: Were asking and some of the responses they were looking for, and in some moments it did feel.
00:01:55
Speaker 4: Or appear as though they were.
00:01:57
Speaker 3: Definitely considering significantly what Diddy's attorneys were arguing, and they at one point one of the judges actually asked the prosecution was questioning the prosecution and said the Man Act was just a side show. Now you want us to rely on all this acquitted conduct.
00:02:16
Speaker 4: That was very compelling.
00:02:18
Speaker 2: So the center of what we're talking about here, folks, he remember the trial with last July went eight weeks explosive, very explosive and pretty graphic testimony throughout. He ultimately gets convicted of two of the five charges against him. He was acquitted of three charges that were most serious that could have resulted in him spending life in prison. He was convicted on two charges having to do with prostitution. Now those two ends up with this right, Robes, he gets four years in prison. So this is where we are. The argument now that catches us up. But they are saying, Robes his attorneys is that the two things he was convicted of, the judge is actually considering conduct in the thing the jury said he didn't do. This now is the center of the argument. And quite frankly, well it sounds like both sides have an argument. And I'm not sure if it's clear if judges are legally allowed to do this or not.
00:03:13
Speaker 3: I believe that that was the argument the prosecution was making. They were saying, yes, you can consider that that that is something that judges are allowed to do, and so.
00:03:24
Speaker 4: That is what they have argued.
00:03:26
Speaker 3: In fact, they said, even if judge a Supermanian made an error in his application and interpretation of the acquitted conduct guideline, which we don't think he did. But even if he did, they argued that that error would be harmless. So you know, they said that, and this is what their other argument, according to Combs and his attorneys. Basically, they were calling, this is bs that the district court should have closed its eyes on how he carried out his man act defenses and abused his victims. And they said, he violently beat them, he threatened them, he lied to them, he plied them with drugs. And they argued to this panel, to this appellate court, to do otherwise would have been unfair and unjust, and that Combs is wrong in his argument that those past acts shouldn't have been considered.
00:04:16
Speaker 4: They are saying the.
00:04:17
Speaker 3: Judge absolutely did and should have considered all of those other acts when putting his sentencing together.
00:04:24
Speaker 2: So bottom lining it is that, yes, he committed this offense. His side is saying, just take it on the merits of the offense. The other side is saying, you have to consider how he committed the offense. Yes correct, it's prostitution, yes fine, But how did he commit the offense of prostitution by beating people, by coercing people, by being violent to folks?
00:04:53
Speaker 1: That is the argument that is a fascinating legal argument.
00:04:55
Speaker 2: And it seems like they are both sides have some legal history and precedent on their sign and are making that argument.
00:05:02
Speaker 1: This is fascinating to me.
00:05:03
Speaker 3: And it's interesting you say that because one of the judges basically said exactly that he said.
00:05:08
Speaker 4: He said he called this an exceptionally.
00:05:11
Speaker 3: Difficult case that raises questions a first impression not only for this court but for any federal court in the country. So what happens or what this appellate panel decides, they know is going to have far reaching and long lasting effects on cases that may come after this one.
00:05:31
Speaker 1: And did I see this is a court.
00:05:33
Speaker 2: I think a lot of people were waiting and expecting them to rule yesterday and that sometimes that's a standard fare for them.
00:05:40
Speaker 4: Yes, they said that there is no.
00:05:43
Speaker 3: There's no expected necessary decision that day, but it could have happened, so yes, they folks who went to the court said that this was very much like the trial itself in terms of who was there. People were all outside the court. They were waiting to see who would come and go. They were waiting to see if they can get in. It was a bit of a media circus once again down there at the Federal Court.
00:06:04
Speaker 2: And we should note he was not there. Sean Ditty Combs did not attend. I believe one family member of his did attend this. And the way it was set up, Robes, it very much sounded like, I mean what I'm used to Supreme Court arguments. East side got ten minutes to make a presentation, but the thing ends up going two hours. They were peppering these lawyers with all these questions. But Roopes, I didn't you put it in such a way that this case now is not just about Sean Ditty COLEMs. It seems like the judges are taking this they know all eyes are on them because of who he is, but also because of the precedent that might be set moving forward for cases.
00:06:41
Speaker 4: Oh this is huge.
00:06:42
Speaker 3: Imagine if if they decided if they sided with Diddy's lawyers on this, what this would do to judges when they sentence a defendant. And defendant is what I was looking for instead of client, that was the word I was looking for. But yes, this would impact every case that followed in terms of where a judge felt like his leeway was in making his determination on sentencing, what he could consider what or she could or could not consider. This is going to have a lasting impact on the way judges do their thing going forward, for sure.
00:07:19
Speaker 2: But it was interesting to Hearbze, and I didn't think I heard the prosecutors really pushed back on the point his Diddy's lawyers were making. No one who has ever been convicted of this has ever gotten a sentence like this he has is the harshest sentence in the history of the Man Act?
00:07:42
Speaker 1: Is this correct? Ye?
00:07:43
Speaker 3: So I actually have the exact quotes from Alexander Alexandra Shapiro. Earl Alexander, It's Alexandra Shapiro. They said this sentence was the highest sentence ever imposed for a Man Act defendant sentenced under the same base, offense level and criminal history category. The jury only authorized punishment for prostitution. It never authorized a sentence four times the typical sentence for that crime.
00:08:13
Speaker 4: That's a powerful argument.
00:08:16
Speaker 2: This is the harshest sentence in the history of the Man Act by far.
00:08:22
Speaker 4: There are times more so.
00:08:24
Speaker 2: But Robes, I don't know this argument. Are you allowed to consider how somebody committed the Man Act defense? Now, something we heard about a lot going in to this hearing ends up being something we didn't really hear about at all during the hearing. We'll explain it sa here we continue here on this Friday, Amy and TJ.
00:08:56
Speaker 1: Rope.
00:08:57
Speaker 2: It's wild to think that we are waiting on decision that could have Sean Diddy Coombs out of prison the moment the decision comes.
00:09:05
Speaker 3: You know, I'm not really anticipating that, but as soon as you said it, I thought, Wow, it is possible.
00:09:10
Speaker 4: It could happen. Right now.
00:09:12
Speaker 3: He is in the middle of serving a fifty month sentence for his crimes. He's scheduled to be released exactly two years from now, April twenty twenty six. So look, his lawyers are trying to get him out now, or at least get a reduced sentence out of this appeals court hearing.
00:09:31
Speaker 2: And we have to remember, too, Ropes, he was in prison that whole time, from his arrest through his trial. If he gets a reduced sentence, there's a lot of time served in that sentence right now.
00:09:43
Speaker 3: True, he's been behind bar since September of twenty twenty four, I believe, so that is quite some time.
00:09:48
Speaker 1: The man has already served an hour a.
00:09:50
Speaker 4: Year and a half in prison, an hour yes, it's early.
00:09:54
Speaker 1: Yes, this client spent an hour and a half in jail. Yeah, this is how it's been a long week.
00:09:58
Speaker 2: Folks stay with us so much of what And I was waiting to hear the argument, but they were talking about he has a First Amendment right to shoot, produce, and watch porn. That was part of the argument at least in their briefing. This did not did you see anywhere that this came up.
00:10:16
Speaker 3: In fact, I saw many folks point out that that really wasn't discussed. Look, if you think about it, I was surprised to hear that both sides only got ten minutes to present their arguments. Now, before this actual hearing took place, the defense submitted an eighty four page briefing of filing making their arguments, and I believe the prosecution submitted an eighty three page argument about why what the judge decided should hold. So they obviously were able to make their points very specifically and very detailed in these filings. But when it came to the oral arguments, yeah, they only got ten minutes. So maybe they just had to focus on what they thought their best chance was. And the First Amendment argument was the argument that his attorneys are making to have it all thrown out, to have him completely acquitted, to have him walk out of prison today.
00:11:07
Speaker 2: Yes, because he wasn't a client, because he wasn't someone benefiting from the prostitution. He wasn't hiring somebody to have sex with. He bought some plane tickets for people to come for a porn shoot. That is the argument, and the argument on the other side, I kind of remember it rose the argument that this gets everybody out of like moving forward, so everybody can just say when I, yes, I hired a prostitute in that state, broad her to this state, but that's not illegal because I filmed it.
00:11:36
Speaker 3: Right. That's tough, but we all and we talked about this during the trial. The use or the application of the Man Act just in general was shaky grounds, so to speak. And that is what I thought was interesting that one of the judges even acknowledged and pointed out when questioning the prosecution, referring to the Man Act as it was used in Diddy's.
00:11:58
Speaker 4: Trial as a side show.
00:11:59
Speaker 3: So I think everyone gets that that was a very loose interpretation of the Man Act and certainly not what it was intended to be used for.
00:12:09
Speaker 2: I'm trying to I can't remember the name, the nickname it had, just its racist origins, but I can't remember what they used to call it. So the Man Act has been debated a plenty. Now the debate is was it applied correctly in how Sean diddy Combe was punished for two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, And that has to do with the Man.
00:12:33
Speaker 4: Act, which was called the White slavery Law.
00:12:36
Speaker 1: There it is, that is what it was called.
00:12:38
Speaker 3: So yes, this was used, and it's never been used like this before, but it worked, at least in this particular case to convict Sean Diddy Combs because he was acquitted of the more serious charges of racketeering conspiracy and certainly that would have landed him in jail potentially for the rest of his life. So just the mere fact that he was only sentenced to fifty months was a win for the defense. But now, look, they could bring home another massive victory if they get any of that sentence reduced further.
00:13:10
Speaker 1: This would be bananas.
00:13:13
Speaker 2: But we stand by Rhodes and we've went through and we're covering on some just making sure you didn't see something. And I didn't see a good indication of when a decision might come.
00:13:21
Speaker 3: No, and I think that's just completely up in the air. We have no idea when. But look, it wouldn't it wouldn't be out of the question to get a ruling today, So we will obviously be Yeah, we will keep our eye on this. Everyone is waiting for word on this. This is a big deal again for Sean Didty Combs, but also for our legal system period.
00:13:43
Speaker 2: A lot of folks said this case should not have been brought in the first place, and then after it was brought they shouldn't have shot for the moon with some of these charges. We shall see, but the Sean Diddy Coombe saga is not over.
00:13:56
Speaker 1: We will keep an eye on it.
00:13:57
Speaker 2: As always, top right corner of your Apple podcast app where you see our show page a little button that says follow click that you can subscribe and make sure you always get our updates. And as we say, there's always a plenty these days. And with that, we always appreciate your spending time with us. I am TJ. Holmes on behalf of my dear Amy Robach. We'll talk to you